Refocusing the Impeachment Movement on Administration Officials Below the President and Vice-President

The Constitution's Impeachment Clause applies to all "civil officers of the United States" - not to mention the president, vice president and federal judges. It is not clear who, precisely, is among those considered "civil officers," but the group certainly includes a president's cabinet and sub-cabinet, as well as the senior department officials and the White House staff (those who are issued commissions by the president and serve the President and Vice President).
...
Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. It would not be an effort to overturn the 2004 election, but rather to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.

Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.

He has poisoned our water forever. [Bush] will be remembered as a classic case of a smart man shi*ting in his own nest. But he also shi* in our nests, and that was the crime that history will burn on his memory like a brand. By disgracing and degrading the Presidency of the United States, by [fleecing] the White House like a diseased cur, [Bush] broke the heart of the American Dream.

I've often heard this argument stated by Nixon's defenders, but when I've had the opportunity to ask about it in a discussion, I've never gotten an answer. So, would you be willing to answer a couple of questions?

When we talk about someone being punished in the context of the legal system and courts, we almost always have in mind a formulation like this: "Bob did XYZ (the offense), and Bob was punished by ZYX (the sentence)." There's some effort made to make the offense and the punishment commensurate with each other.

So my questions are: What do you claim Nixon's specific offense or offenses to have been? And how, specifically, was he punished? Why do you say his punishment was "plenty" in proportion to the seriousness of what he did?

I don't have much hope that you'll respond; as I said, no one I've asked this sort of thing of ever has. But maybe you will.

Thanks, if you do.

And it means that he was never convicted or sentenced; Ford pardoned him before any of these things could become possible.

It means that he was allowed to keep control of the White House tapes and documents that showed what he had done, denying the public access for years and years.

It means that he never had to keep his promise to repay the US for the improvements he had made to his private residences during his Presidency.

It means that he was given only $200,000 for his transition expenses by the Congress, instead of the $850,000 Ford requested for him. And the $100,000 slated for "miscellaneous" expenses was cut.

Poor fellow. At least he wasn't stripped of his pension ... or the taxpayer subsidies for his office space, staff salaries, office supplies, and telephone service ... or his lifetime medical benefits and Secret Service security staff.

He was punished plenty. How he must have suffered.

Where's your "national pride" gone now?

I'm not willing to have the site be unaccessible to thousands of readers so that you can express yourself with profanity.  All you had to do was use an asterisk for one of the letters.

I don't keep copies of deleted comments. Since the move to Scoop, I cannot edit comments, only delete them.  That's what happened to your comment.